- (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petitions have been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.10.2008 / 27.2.2009 by which the reference sent by subordinate authorities have been allowed and the plot nos. 1017 (area 0.012 hectare), 1020 (area 0.020 hectare) and 996 (area 0.040 hectare) were found to be double entry accordingly these plots were directed to be deleted from the land reserved for general abadi.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that on the objection of the petitioner under Section 9 B, the land in dispute was reserved for extension of abadi. The petitioner's house is situated adjacent to the land in dispute as such the petitioner ought to have been heard before passing the order. Although the reference has been sent by the subordinate authorities and has been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but no notice was issued. Section 48 (3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 provides that the subordinate authorities after issuing the notice to the concerned parties may sent a reference for taking action by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Section 48 (1) of the Act also provides that an opportunity of hearing should be given by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus at the stage of sending a reference as well as accepting a reference, notices ought to have been issued. A perusal of the impugned order shows that neither the subordinate authorities has issued any notice nor Deputy Director of Consolidation has issued any notice before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. The petitioner has already filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;